Hacker News

points by jnovek 1 day ago | 0 comments

How are we gonna get them to do that? We have a choice between two parties each propped up by trillions of dollars in donations that are both cool with selling our data.

[–] jonnat 1 day ago

We need to fight back against this type of both-sidesism and other demoralization propaganda on HN.

[–] jnovek 1 day ago

This isn’t “both sides” stuff. We, the constituents, seem to have very little input on what values our parties represent anymore. We just get to pick the one we like best. This has gotten worse in my lifetime, esp after Citizen’s United.

I’m voting against the face eating leopard party every time. I’m not voting for someone. I would like very much to be voting for someone instead of against someone.

[–] N_Lens 1 day ago

It’s pretty pervasive and there’s plenty of tacit and overt support for Republicans here.

[–] jimbokun 1 day ago

With how successful the Republicans have been recently it would be very strange if that were not the case.

[–] belorn 1 day ago

Sure, there are third parties. It just that people associate that with wasted votes.

[–] vanviegen 1 day ago

That's because the two reigning parties designed the system such that votes for other parties are in fact mostly wasted.

[–] sneurlax 1 day ago

Are both parties not driven by their largest donors?

[–] SmirkingRevenge 1 day ago

Yes and no

The internet era has brought about the rise of small dollar donors making an outsized impact (for better or worse - it's not always a good thing)

This has given rise to more forms of populism (left and right, benign and toxic)

In any case, it does provide some counter weight to large donor class.

Money tends to have diminishing returns past a certain point, when it comes to elections.

And I think people underestimate what dopes many large donors are - that just get milked by the party people pumping them full of sweet talk and don't really get much in return

[–] cucumber3732842 1 day ago

>And I think people underestimate what dopes many large donors are - that just get milked by the party people pumping them full of sweet talk and don't really get much in return

They also see it like an insurance payment. Kick some amount to both sides in the hope that they leave you alone.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

Trump famously won without having the largest donors. He only had 1 big backer (Robert Mercer) in 2016 before the Republican primaries, he was assumed to be a joke candidate. After he won the primaries, he finally got some recognition from the establishment, but even then, they were tepid on investing in him because he was assumed to lose the election.

He’s basically proof of the power of the common man’s vote in the US.

[–] 5upplied_demand 1 day ago

Trump was a billionaire, able to fund his own campaign, that hardly proves the power of the common man. Now, back to 2026, the richest person in the world has spent almost $500 million on helping Republicans in the midterms. Clearly him and Trump don't believe too much in the power of the common man's vote.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

>Trump was a billionaire, able to fund his own campaign, that hardly proves the power of the common man.

He still spent the least and publicly eschewed donations. His skill was being able to connect with the voters that matter (unfortunately).

As far as I can tell, donations after he was elected in 2016 are simply bribes.

[–] jimbokun 1 day ago

When did he publicly eschew donations? He raised plenty of money, albeit bit as much as his competitors.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/robert-mercer...

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-shrugs-off-campa...

>Trump has spent much of the race so far breaking the mould of a traditional campaign, defeating a crowded field of primary opponents who vastly outspent him in ads and staff.

>During the Republican primary race, he often told his supporters not to contribute money and ridiculed opponents for accepting cash from special interest groups and wealthy contributors.

>He has so far showed little interest in calling donors to ask for money for his general election battle. He only began holding in-person fundraisers in late May.

[–] 5upplied_demand 1 day ago

He gave over $60 million to his own campaign and used his existing celebrity to get media coverage 24/7.

[–] lotsofpulp 1 day ago

>that hardly proves the power of the common man.

What I meant was the 2016 Repub primaries are evidence that the common man votes for who they want, not who the large donors want. The Repub party leadership and previous decision makers were usurped, and hence the idea of MAGA supplanting the Republican Party. More evidence is Dick Cheney and the Bush family becoming quickly irrelevant.

[–] zzzeek 1 day ago

not at all. wow people need to do some basic research on this. the Republicans are driven by a tiny handful of billionaires and with Musk, trillionaires. Democratic candidates OTOH rely to a vastly larger extent on millions of individual donors sending $100 or less - there are still large donors but their contribution to Democrats is close to an order of magnitude less than what GOP megadonors provide.

Of course, both of these funding models should be banned which would mean dismantling the Citizens United decision spearheaded by the now-known-to-be-fully-corrupt Roberts court, which might require a constitutional amendment.

[–] jimbokun 1 day ago

As always Trump is worse but the Democrats hands are by no means clean.

[–] Telaneo 1 day ago

There's a secret third political option, but it's usually frowned upon.

[–] rexpop 1 day ago

Labor organizing?

[–] noumenon1111 1 day ago

That's pretty normal. I think bro is pointing at either a general strike or regicide, both of which are highly frowned upon.

[–] rexpop 1 day ago

I guess I view a general strike as the inevitable precipitation of labor organizing critical mass.

And I also think of it as pretty esoteric to the mainstream, TBH.

[–] zzzeek 1 day ago

> both cool with selling our data.

I guess you can pretend Liz Warren, Ron Wyden, Patty Murray, dozens of house reps and thousands of Democratic legisltators in statehouses and towns around the country don't exist and just vote for the "party that lowered my taxes" again , right?

[–] jnovek 1 day ago

I’m not saying that there aren’t people who care in our government, it’s just that the political machines themselves — the political parties — are beholden to big corporate donors until such time that Citizen’s United is struck down.

[–] dmoose 1 day ago

You aren't wrong, but that doesn't mean that ranking candidates and then choosing the one that is more aligned with your ideas isn't a valid strategy. This system is deeply broken but pointing that out and then putting a period on the end helps ensure it stays that way.

[–] DANmode 1 day ago

You have to string more than 1 of them together to get any results besides “they voted for it and it still lost”.

[–] techteach00 1 day ago

Liz Warren is a fascist who would use every police state tactic you hate on her opposition.

[–] cucumber3732842 1 day ago

Warren? Come on. She is a TEXTBOOK example of someone who was a real person who arguably had morals who sold her soul to the party for a fancy title. Obama should have made her head of the CFPB since that was her pet project and career specialty. But no, everything "worked out better" for the machine if she just became an unremarkable senator.

[–] zzzeek 1 day ago

dont look at soundbites, look at legislation proposed. that's how Senators actually do their work

[–] cowlevel 1 day ago

Except for the part where they often propose legislation they know won't pass and then don't propose it later when it will pass.

Sometimes they miscalculate. Mitch McConnell once had to filibuster his own bill because he didn't mean for it to pass.